Health Care Reform Debate

[KRAM1]

I quote from the September 9, 2009 "Policy Analysis" piece from the Cato Institute:

"There has been a great deal of misinformation in the debate over health care reform. Opponents have sometimes been hyperbolic in describing death panels and forced euthanasia. At the same time, supporters have been disingenuous in promising that people will be able to keep their doctors and current insurance plans.

The confusion has been magnified by the lack of a single health care bill. At least three different versions are currently making their way slowly toward the House floor. A fourth version has passed the Senate HELP Committee, and a fifth still-inchoate version is being negotiated behind closed doors by six members of the Senate Finance Committee. This makes it hard to pin down specific details and easy for representatives to duck questions on the issue.

However, if one reads through the different bills and proposals, it becomes clear that under all the current versions of health reform, Americans will end up paying more and getting less. In fact, Americans will pay more than $820 billion in higher taxes over the next 10 years and could see their insurance premiums rise as much as 95 percent.

Health care reform will increase the budget deficit by at least $239 billion over the next 10 years and far more in the years beyond that. If the new health care entitlement were subject to the same 75-year actuarial standards as Social Security or Medicare, its unfunded liabilities would exceed $9.2 trillion.

At the same time, while the bills contain no direct provisions for rationing care, they nonetheless set the stage for government rationing and interference with how doctors practice medicine. Millions of Americans who are happy with their current health insurance will not be able to keep it, while at least some Americans may find it more difficult to see their current doctor.

Perhaps the best summation, comes from Rep. John Alder (D-NJ): "The bill that's coming through the House, with or without the public option, isn't good for America' ".

One of the best summations, free of emotion, that I have seen regarding the health care debate. Yes, it comes from Michael Tanner in his article, "Halfway to Where? Answering the Key Questions of Health Care Reform" published by the Cato Institute, but seems rather free of bias and written without the emotion many folks want to put into this debate. The full article is very enlightening and informative.

Now, you decide!

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

I just reading the excerpt, I see alot of bias against any kind of reform...without emotion, yes...without bias, I would disagree. Everyone/every organization has bias and the Cato Institute is no different.

[EagleGreen]

I just reading the excerpt, I see alot of bias against any kind of reform...without emotion, yes...without bias, I would disagree. Everyone/every organization has bias and the Cato Institute is no different.

Whew. Certainly biased. FULL of bias. Emotion? It certainly sparks emotion.

[hickoryhouse]

I think there is definitely some truth in there, the lack of a single bill to look at makes the debate full of hyperbole on both sides. If we could get one bill then we would all have some common ground on which to pull from and we could have a constructive debate about the facts, not the assumptions, for both sides.

[KRAM1]

I just reading the excerpt, I see a lot of bias against any kind of reform...without emotion, yes...without bias, I would disagree. Everyone/every organization has bias and the Cato Institute is no different.

Do you see "bias" around every street corner too? Come on...how can you make a statement like "I see a lot of bias against any kind of reform"? If one disagrees with another on an issue, that does not constitute bias in analysis or conclusion. It constitutes a disagreement.

Another question...is "bias" in itself wrong or bad? I like Miller Lite better than Coors Lite...I have a bias toward Miller Lite. Is that, in itself "wrong, evil or bad" somehow? Just wondering from an entirely different perspective. But, back to the topic at hand...I think you have to stretch pretty hard to see a "bias" against "any kind of reform" in this summary. But, perhaps bias is in the eye of the beholder....heck, I'll admit to being bioased against just about everything Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson have to say.

[Quoner]

I like Miller Lite better than Coors Lite...I have a bias toward Miller Lite. Is that, in itself "wrong, evil or bad" somehow?

Yes - because they both taste like crap.

[EagleGreen]

Do you see "bias" around every street corner too? Come on...how can you make a statement like "I see a lot of bias against any kind of reform"? If one disagrees with another on an issue, that does not constitute bias in analysis or conclusion. It constitutes a disagreement.

Another question...is "bias" in itself wrong or bad? I like Miller Lite better than Coors Lite...I have a bias toward Miller Lite. Is that, in itself "wrong, evil or bad" somehow? Just wondering from an entirely different perspective. But, back to the topic at hand...I think you have to stretch pretty hard to see a "bias" against "any kind of reform" in this summary. But, perhaps bias is in the eye of the beholder....heck, I'll admit to being bioased against just about everything Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson have to say.

When trying to promote, defend, or speak against "something" (i.e., inform the public on an issue), bias is bad. Bias is not disagreement. It's O.K. to disagree, even to disagree in public, as long as you state facts (of the non-stretched sort) and do not misrepresent the other opinion. For instance, the "article" above says (roughly) that republicans are misrepresenting the health bill(s) by saying there will be death panels and democrats are misrepresenting the bills by saying you can keep your own doctors. There will be no death panels but you will be able to keep your own doctor. The bias in this case arises from misrepresenting the democrats and presenting it as fact to the public to get a biased point across (that the bill(s) are bad; not the football team).

To prevent bias, "people" conduct independent reviews, random sampling, seek multiple "news" sources (they all seem a little biased these days), etc. Bias is bad; Disagreement is good. Preference, in your beer example is another issue all together. To compare the beers, you would need to have a panel of beer experts (certified) establish criteria of a good beer. Then have independent beer experts sample each. If one of the experts had stock in Miller Lite and said Miller Lite was a better beer then he would be biased regardless if the beer was better or not and he should not be allowed on the panel. You get it. I'm a shiner man myself.

[eulessismore]

Do you see "bias" around every street corner too? Come on...how can you make a statement like "I see a lot of bias against any kind of reform"? If one disagrees with another on an issue, that does not constitute bias in analysis or conclusion. It constitutes a disagreement.

Another question...is "bias" in itself wrong or bad? I like Miller Lite better than Coors Lite...I have a bias toward Miller Lite. Is that, in itself "wrong, evil or bad" somehow? Just wondering from an entirely different perspective. But, back to the topic at hand...I think you have to stretch pretty hard to see a "bias" against "any kind of reform" in this summary. But, perhaps bias is in the eye of the beholder....heck, I'll admit to being bioased against just about everything Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson have to say.

I don't think that, in and of itself, makes you any of those things. However, in my times as a beer drinker, I had the same opinion of said beers as you stated concerning the NFL owners and the overall treatement of Rush Limbaugh in that matter, "Weak....and wishy-washy at best". Nope, nothing wrong with bias, necessarily, I just have a hard time when those stating a political point of view quote a source as "unbiased". A noble concept, but where does "unbiased" exist? Maybe political writers are like statisticians, who have their heads in the freezer, their feet in the oven, and on the average, are quite comfortable.

Edited October 16, 2009 by eulessismore

[hickoryhouse]

A noble concept, but where does "unbiased" exist?

Theoretically in the noble profession of journalism, but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore and both sides have their opinions of that idea...

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

Theoretically in the noble profession of journalism, but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore and both sides have their opinions of that idea...

Was it ever the case? I'd bet that "old school" (ex. Cronkite) journalism had its fair share of bias. There is just alot more media these days and we are now more perceptive of it. "And that's the way it is."

[KRAM1]

Was it ever the case? I'd bet that "old school" (ex. Cronkite) journalism had its fair share of bias. There is just a lot more media these days and we are now more perceptive of it. "And that's the way it is."

Agree.

And, to the beers...having just returned from Munich and Oktoberfest...I agree...both Miller Lite and Coors Lite taste like water! But, of the two, I still prefer Miller Lite. Ever had Smoke Beer from Bamberg, Germany???? Had the experience on our recent Beer Tour (Yes, there is such an organized tour...look it up...Beertrips.com). If you closed your eyes before drinking it, you would swear that you were drinking "liquid bacon". Not our favorite beer on the trip, but the most unique for sure!

GO MEAN GREEN!

[Shuke-D]

Agree.

And, to the beers...having just returned from Munich and Oktoberfest...I agree...both Miller Lite and Coors Lite taste like water! But, of the two, I still prefer Miller Lite. Ever had Smoke Beer from Bamberg, Germany???? Had the experience on our recent Beer Tour (Yes, there is such an organized tour...look it up...Beertrips.com). If you closed your eyes before drinking it, you would swear that you were drinking "liquid bacon". Not our favorite beer on the trip, but the most unique for sure!

GO MEAN GREEN!

Ahhh, Rauch Bier. A specialized treat. It's meant to accompany meats. Hence, the smokiness compliments the food. By itself, yeah, it's a bit odd. Like huffing smoke out of the fireplace and then slamming a can.

[KRAM1]

Ahhh, Rauch Bier. A specialized treat. It's meant to accompany meats. Hence, the smokiness compliments the food. By itself, yeah, it's a bit odd. Like huffing smoke out of the fireplace and then slamming a can.

Yep, had a "Pork Knuckle" while "enjoying" the Smoke Beer. If you like meat and beer, a Beer Tour to Prague, Munich and Bamberg is right down your alley. Like I said, check out the site at : www.beertrips.com. They take Beer Tours to a bunch of great beer heavens. My wife and I absolutely had a great time!

[UNT90]

I like Molson Canadian, not that Molson Golden crap. Can't get Canadian anywhere in the states. Makes me sad, which makes me lazy, which makes me not exercise, which makes me gain weight, which gives me health problems, which makes me seek care, which, since I'm lazy, makes me want it for free.

If only there was Molson Canadian, all of our, well, my, problems would be solved.